- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:39:14 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- cc: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Daniel: Below are some minor clarification nits that should be made to the text of the selectors module. On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, fantasai wrote: > > Here's a selector: form[method="get"] > Does it match <form action="script.cgi">? No. > I can conclude from the first paragraph in 6.3.4 that it does. > > "W3C selectors should be implemented so that they work > even if the default values are not included in the > document tree" Good catch. I would hazard a guess that Daniel meant to use "used so" or "written such" not "implemented so". This is a hint to stylesheet authors, not UA authors. > Yet the example presented below that sentence implies that it doesn't! > > "If the selectors represent an EXAMPLE element when the > value of the attribute is explicitely set: > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > EXAMPLE[notation=decimal] > EXAMPLE[notation=octal] > > then to represent the case where this attribute is set > by default, and not explicitly, the following selector > might be used: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > EXAMPLE > " > > *and* the last example implies that the following selector > > form > > does not match <form action="script.cgi" method="post">-- > which contradicts CSS1. This is a now-wrong example that has been carried through from CSS2, where it was the only way to achieve the desired result. The selector should now be: EXAMPLE:not([notation]) ...if you want to select an EXAMPLE element that does not have the notation attribute set explicitly. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--' +1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 18:37:11 UTC